Tired of late messages from your boss? A new bill aims to make it illegal

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tired-of-late-messages-from-your-boss-a-new-bill-aims-to-make-it-illegal/ar-BB1l2niL

by happyopossum • 2 years ago

53 40 2 years ago

msn.com

kelnos8• 2 years ago

I'm sure it will cut down on some of this, but the most notorious of offenders probably won't change their ways. And I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired, or retaliated against in more subtle ways. Regardless of any anti-retaliation provisions.

I do agree with the quote in the article about how it could reduce flexibility. If employers have to develop a company-wide policy defining work hours, that means employees can't really shift their schedules earlier or later. (Well, they can, but employers might be uncomfortable with a situation where an employee is working from noon until 8pm, but they're not allowed to contact them after 5pm.)

Or companies will just say "our work hours are 7am to 10pm, take it or leave it", with it understood that employees will generally only be working for 8 (or whatever) hours of that, but bosses can contact workers anywhere in that time range.

xcv1232• 2 years ago

I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired

Employees can simply ignore their bosses emails/calls after hours. No need to report anyone.

BenFranklin1003• 2 years ago

Exactly.

kelnos8• 2 years ago

Sure, and bosses can promote and give better raises to the employees who do answer messages after hours, while letting the careers of the ignorers languish.

That's true today, of course, but unfortunately I don't think laws can really fix that.

chmod775• 2 years ago

And I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired, or retaliated against in more subtle ways. Regardless of any anti-retaliation provisions.

Precisely. The people this would (but doesn't) protect are those who don't have a strong position or one would describe as meek. Most often it is the latter or both. Those in a strong position, who had no problem ignoring work messages when it wasn't convenient or telling their manager to shove it if necessary didn't have the problem this tries to solve.

The only time these employers really change their behavior is when they are so afraid of the legal repercussions, they make it a point to adhere to the regulations and then some.

It doesn't help that this is fighting culture (weak separation of work and life).

gumby2• 2 years ago

And I doubt many employees will report on their bosses for fear of getting fired, or retaliated against in more subtle ways.

The point is that when you quit you cite this as a reason and they pay severance.

kelnos8• 2 years ago

Why would they do that? I've only read the article, and not the bill itself, but I don't see anywhere where this law would mandate that sort of arrangement.

ohmyiv• 2 years ago

At my current position, company policy says we're not supposed to answer work calls after hours. We also have flexible schedules, but we have to notify supervisors of the hours, preferably ahead of time. They use those hours to decide whether or not to contact us.

They make it clear that if we are off work, we don't have to answer any calls or respond to texts. Luckily, my supervisors are all about the policy and don't contact us during non-working hours.

HeatrayEnjoyer2• 2 years ago

The legislation runs off of what the employee's normal hours are. It doesn't forbid schedule shifting at the employee's discretion, and declaring 7am-10pm hours would not be recognized as legitimate unless the employee actually normally performs work during those entire hours.

If this passes and California aggressively enforces it (and they normally do), employers will not be able to weasel out of it by using blatant bad faith rectus. Some will try at first and regret it when CA hangs them out to make an example of.

wkat42422• 2 years ago

They have this in Germany and France too.

It's a bit disingenious I think. I like working at flexible time. I'm not like the French sitting down for dinner with the family at 6pm, in fact I don't even have a family.

If there's something urgent at 11pm I'm totally fine handling it and I'll sleep in the next day to compensate. Forcing me to have a 9-5 life is not the solution.

ern2• 2 years ago

FTA: Haney thinks the bill is already being misconstrued and said that it would only require that companies be transparent about their expectations for working hours. Employers would still have the freedom to dictate their policy, which could include that employees be available around-the-clock, he said.

zik• 2 years ago

France and Germany's laws don't mandate a 9-5 life. Germany's isn't actually even a law at all - it's a self-regulated model which encourages agreements between employers and employees. France's is an actual law, but again it's about negotiating an agreement - it doesn't mandate specific hours.

This makes sense - workplaces differ enough that the it's best to negotiate these things based on the work situation.

In your case given that your work has flexible hours then you could negotiate to be contactable during your "on" hours and not when you're "off". This could be as simple as "you can call me on Slack when I'm logged on there".

neom• 2 years ago

Ontario, but the Ontario regulation is pretty weird imo: https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standa...

wkat42422• 2 years ago

Yeah Germany is kinda weird.

We had the voluntary option for employees to use their own phones. Until in Germany their "workers council" decided that as a company we should supply the tools for the job, and they wanted it to be blocked for employees to use their own phones. This caused so much anger with the employees because even though we already give everybody a company phone, a lot of people hate carrying 2 of them and simply stuff the work sim into their second slot and enroll it in the company MDM. On Android in particular the work environment is completely separate.

But for some reason this "workers council" is a total deity there. Even though the employees are represented the people on there are these overzealous crusaders that want everything done their way. We have this phenomenon in Holland too (called "Ondernemingsraad") but they don't tend to heavily-handed force things like this.

But whatever, the Germans can have their rules and regulations, I'm just glad I don't live there. I hate being told what I can and can't do.

cpcat• 2 years ago

Wait till you meet some fun bosses. I actually hope you do

SkyPuncher• 2 years ago

In my experience, a late call gets you nothing more than a routine day on the next.

I think most people would be happy to take an 11pm call if they could roll in late the next day. Generally, that’s not the expectation.

rank04• 2 years ago

What an absurd and completely unenforceable idea. Its almost like California is intentionally trying to throw away their economic blessings…

kelnos8• 2 years ago

Funny, that's what people have said about most of California's nation-leading (though sadly far from world-leading) worker protections for decades, and yet our economy is still pretty strong.

I suspect the strength of CA's economy is more due to those worker protections than in spite of them.

rank04• 2 years ago

Really?! You dont think its because of hollywood, silicon valley, massive population and natural resource reserves? Beautiful climate and tourism? EDIT: and phenomenal state universities!

Worker protection laws are the seriously the driver in your mind?

BenFranklin1003• 2 years ago

Our corporate policy is that any company communication received outside normal working hours can safely be ignored until the next working day. I encourage employees to turn off their email and phones outside of work. I do require a personal contact information in case of genuine emergencies but this is rarely (if ever) used. Regular downtime is important for mental health. The way I view it, if an employer needs to contact people outside of work hours, it’s a failure of management and proper planning.

Nonetheless, this is an extraordinarily stupid bill. If passed, I hope the exodus of companies drives the California economy into the ground.

ern2• 2 years ago

This is the law in many parts of the world, and their economies seem to have not collapsed.

Haney thinks the bill is already being misconstrued and said that it would only require that companies be transparent about their expectations for working hours. Employers would still have the freedom to dictate their policy, which could include that employees be available around-the-clock, he said.

gedy• 2 years ago

Then honestly what is the point? PR for upcoming elections?

kelnos8• 2 years ago

Nonetheless, this is an extraordinarily stupid bill.

Wow, that escalated quickly.

So you think that a law that is supposed to enforce an idea that you and your company already practice (but sadly many, many do not)... is stupid? What a bizarre take.

If passed, I hope the exodus of companies drives the California economy into the ground.

I think CA's experience enacting many of the best worker protections in the US suggests this won't harm our economy in the slightest.

xeornet• 2 years ago

Wow, glad to see California is focusing on it’s most pressing problems…

thomasfromcdnjs• 2 years ago

Who are the main libertarian voices in America these days?

Surely human autonomy and culture can "enforce" this idea over time.

kelnos8• 2 years ago

Who are the main libertarian voices in America these days?

Hopefully realizing that most of what they say requires an idealized world with perfect actors, perfect information, and perfect balance to actually be workable. And that of course we don't live in that world.

Surely human autonomy and culture can "enforce" this idea over time.

Sure, just like the rest of the country doesn't have anti-compete agreements because "human autonomy" somehow overcame the inherent employer-employee power imbalance. Or just like "human autonomy" stopped exploitative child labor.

logifail• 2 years ago

Q: What about teams which aren't all conveniently located in the same time zone, or even the same continent?

My OH is currently working with two unrelated groups of people, the first group is based in Sydney (GMT+11), the second group is mostly in the US with members from Boston (GMT-4) all the way to San Diego (GMT-7).

whycome• 2 years ago

I read this as "it will be illegal to be tired of late messages from your boss."

at least $100 per offense

How is that any kind of disincentive. That's just billable hours at a certain point.

kelnos8• 2 years ago

It's a pretty poor disincentive.

Slightly better would be to fine the manager directly, not the employer.

Granted, the employer can then just reimburse the manager. But I still feel like this would be a better disincentive.

Of course, investigating each instance will cost more than $100.

Tired of late messages from your boss? A new bill aims to make it illegal

Related Stories